To bring up how unfair the 11+ is?

[Jaggerdagger]

I live in a notorious grammar school area in the south east (I'm sure you can guess which one!).

Reasons why I dislike the 11+:

1. Tutoring is an unfair advantage and can only be accessed for those that can afford it. How can the 11+ be accurately assessed if the majority are tutored and only a handful manage to pass the test without additional support?
2. If a child is tutored just to pass a test, it doesn't necessary mean that they will thrive in a grammar school. I'm a teacher and I've seen lots of pupils not coping well in the high pressured environment.
3. It's divisive and can make those children that don't get in feel that they are inferior. Feeling like a failure age 11 for something that could be totally avoidable if this system wasn't in place seems terribly sad to me.
4. Comprehensive schools in the area suffer in various ways because of grammar schools. For instance, more private schools are opened in the area due to parents wanting to pay for better facilities for their children that didn't get into grammar school.

I'm sure this has been discussed before on here but I think it's worth bringing it up once more for debate.

Aibu to think that this is an archaic and unfit system that should be either be abolished or drastically changed?

6th form private school if they attend grammar school

We have such a good state 6th form college in the next county that the students from the private schools leave in droves to go there. The college offers a wider range of subjects at A level, has a better reputation than the 6th forms at the private schools and it's free.

It sounds like you don't want your DC mixing with the riff raff.

YABU in thinking that removing the 11+ will create fairness in the education system and that fairness could and should be pursued. There will always be inequality, whether it is through parental help, geographical differences, community aspirations, private schools, tutoring and selection by postcode.

Fwiw there are plenty of parents at my dc’s grammar that could afford private but choose not to. The children are motivated, well behaved and aspirational. Obviously some children in other schools share those qualities but there will be some that don’t. I’m merely hoping that my DCs can achieve their potential in an environment conducive to learning.

Fwiw there are plenty of parents at my dc’s grammar that could afford private but choose not to.

There were plenty of parents at DD's comprehensive school who could have afforded private, but chose not to.

The problem here is grammar schools not 11+

Fifty years ago, I sat and failed my 11 +. I went to the local secondary modern school. We were not taught the relevant material for the test, let alone how to pass it. Only occasionally did someone from our village school pass the exam.
My father said he would buy me a bike if I passed. I never got the bike, and I felt I had let him down.
The school was rough, and we were streamed according to how well we had performed on that wretched 11 +. Those who did fairly well, were put in the top streams at school, and would learn a modern foreign language. Those who did not do so well, were put in the lower streams.
If you went to the grammar school, you were considered to be 'academic' and might even go to university. For secondary modern kids, we were encouraged to learn a trade.
The system was totally, totally unfair. It was social engineering at its worst. Even in those days, it was the children of the parents who had the benefit of a higher education , who were more likely to pass the exam.
I went on to get a first class honours degree, a masters degree and a PhD, but only after returning to study much later in life and juggling study with work and childcare. For nearly half my life I felt like I was a failure.
I am surprised the two tier system still operates. It was not designed to give poor children a chance. Rather it was designed to keep poor people in their place.

You can’t be tutored for the test, this is just incorrect. DH runs a tutoring company for this.
CEM which I assume is your area, changes every year to be unpredictable.
You can’t “learn questions”. You either have the ability to “get it” or not.

If you weren’t coached, and don’t pass, but are intelligent - that will and should catch up as you go through school. If it doesn’t, then you weren’t necessarily the right person for grammar anyway.

When I took my 11+, you had to sit it at the top school, so if you didn’t pass and picked a grammar you could lose your place at preferred comp. So I sat mine at a comp and passed.

I went to the comp, I got 12A*s. I then went to the grammar for sixth form. I now work in finance and have done exceptionally well. I’m still in my twenties.

For context, DH tutored a boy once a week for a few months before his 11+. He passed well. He is still in Year 6 and is currently able to get full marks on level 9 GCSE maths questions. He could sit a GCSE paper tomorrow and pass. Not amazingly well but above a 4.

Some children are exceptional. Not just smart by your definitions- you aren’t their actual teacher and you cannot comment.

Yes the system can be unfair for those who can’t get teachers. But a good parental home would make use of free resources and a kid that actually wants it would work for it. So I do believe they would get in.

I am surprised the two tier system still operates

I didn't know there were still grammar school areas until I joined mumsnet.

I think those posting 'I/my dc didn't tutor and they got in' don't understand how the 11Plus works.
It's a competition.
If there's 100 places available at st Mary's grammar, then 100 kids in the area pass. The others 'fail'.
So, it is completely and utterly dependent on the specific area you live in.
Child A could get 50% answers correct in Area A and pass, and child B could get 90% answers correct in Area B and fail.

@crazydineraddict

Yes it’s unfair. No I don’t believe if you pass the 11+ you will struggle because you’ve been tutored. The concepts are still advanced. If that was the case then at GCSE everyone would get a 9.

A truly talented child won’t need tutoring but the bar has been raised through tuition of what is “truly talented”

I live in a grammar area (not sure it’s yours). I never touched a paper before I sat mine and we were poor so couldn’t afford tuition, I passed as did a lot of my friends. Of course some failed, but if you were capable you made it

The issue here is that children who are not truely talented are coached to do the tests and therefore take the places of the truely talented who sit it “cold turkey” because their parents couldn’t afford tutors and some of these state schools will not publish past papers on line, yet the private schools have access to similar papers to hot house their pupils

Whether you get in or not depends on the amount of grammer schools in your area. They simply assign places by ranking in hte exams. If there are 500 places across multiple schools in your LEA for 10000 girls you’ll get in if your within the top 5% . If there are 100 places you’ve got to be in top 1%. It varies according to regions- so doesn’t help with saying “well I didn’t have tutoring and still got in”🙄🤦‍♀️

In early 200o’s I saw this in action at reading grammar school. 100 places per year. This was only state grammer school in all west Berkshire for boys. Vast majority of places always went to public school pupils coming in from well outside district LEA. My son came 110th on rating list ( they told us His position on results report), with no coaching as we couldn’t afford it- I just did my best to try and figure out what he might be asked to do to prep him. I have no doubt that he was more gifted than some of those that made it into the top 100. He was already identified as a “gifted “ pupil by LEA and the teachers advised us to put him in. Though that didn’t help much and didn’t actually really provide any additional opportunities for him 🤣🤣. Just gave him a big head 🙄🤣

But, it didn’t do him any harm in the end ..state schooled..university and now very settled in well paid job with lovely friends including those he made at school that he still visit when he is back “home” . He also has a good attitude towards women, having made close platonic relationships with girls as well as boys at school, which I think would have been much more unlikely being surrounded in an all boys environment all day.

Same is true for me. I didn’t sit it in the end as moved out of district with 4 months to go before exams. But I know I would have failed- everyone was telling me. I went into “middle school. Now that was a brilliant and sadly lost educational experience. By the time I got to 13 and went to secondary school I was top set- just needed more time to “mature”. Went to uni . Had a successful and stable career. Retired early. Don’t do me any harm- in fact the opposite..middle school was a fab experience.

Very unfair. Grammar schools shouldn’t be allowed.

@crazydineraddict

You can’t be tutored for the test, this is just incorrect. DH runs a tutoring company for this. CEM which I assume is your area, changes every year to be unpredictable. You can’t “learn questions”. You either have the ability to “get it” or not.

If you weren’t coached, and don’t pass, but are intelligent - that will and should catch up as you go through school. If it doesn’t, then you weren’t necessarily the right person for grammar anyway.

When I took my 11+, you had to sit it at the top school, so if you didn’t pass and picked a grammar you could lose your place at preferred comp. So I sat mine at a comp and passed.

I went to the comp, I got 12A*s. I then went to the grammar for sixth form. I now work in finance and have done exceptionally well. I’m still in my twenties.

For context, DH tutored a boy once a week for a few months before his 11+. He passed well. He is still in Year 6 and is currently able to get full marks on level 9 GCSE maths questions. He could sit a GCSE paper tomorrow and pass. Not amazingly well but above a 4.

Some children are exceptional. Not just smart by your definitions- you aren’t their actual teacher and you cannot comment.

Yes the system can be unfair for those who can’t get teachers. But a good parental home would make use of free resources and a kid that actually wants it would work for it. So I do believe they would get in.

Nope..not the case.. see my post earlier.

@EvilPea

Certain schools are great at coaching for the test but these are not always the independents, particularly the feeder schools or those whose leavers tend to remain in the private sector. Either way, primary schools tend not to cover the Non Verbal Reasoning part of the test so this is where tutoring can make a significant difference

State aren’t allowed to tutor AT ALL
Independents can, and do.

My DC's state primary school did some 11+ prep in Year 5. Run by a couple of the teachers at 8am once a week.

The DC did need to get there in time though.

@Warblerinwinter we will have to just disagree then. It is not a simple ranking of the test score - that’s another incorrect statement. Scores are adjusted on a bell curve. Many different factors are taken into account and PP is one of those.

At least for the area I’m in. With many grammars.

@Winnerwinnerveggiedinner

YABU in thinking that removing the 11+ will create fairness in the education system and that fairness could and should be pursued. There will always be inequality, whether it is through parental help, geographical differences, community aspirations, private schools, tutoring and selection by postcode. Fwiw there are plenty of parents at my dc’s grammar that could afford private but choose not to. The children are motivated, well behaved and aspirational. Obviously some children in other schools share those qualities but there will be some that don’t. I’m merely hoping that my DCs can achieve their potential in an environment conducive to learning.

🤣🤣🤣🙄 Of course there are parents at your dc GRAMMAR school that could afford private. That’s the point that the grammar school places are taken by kids coming out of private education cos parents don’t have o pay for it, How many kids are in the non grammer schools whose parents could afford private 🙄🤦‍♀️

[quote crazydineraddict]@Warblerinwinter we will have to just disagree then. It is not a simple ranking of the test score - that’s another incorrect statement. Scores are adjusted on a bell curve. Many different factors are taken into account and PP is one of those.

At least for the area I’m in. With many grammars.[/quote]
Ok…that’s why the great debate has raged on and on for years and years.
Those that went to grammar can’t see the problem!

@Flickflak

I think every school should have an extension stream so bright children of all backgrounds have an opportunity to access it. I don’t understand the inconsistency between regions, nor why the brightest children all have to be together rather than getting extension classes at a comp.

Money It’s always down to money

It’s a unfair system on a few counts.

1. Only a few areas have grammar schools.
2. They are monopolized mainly by the wealthy.

In my area we do not have a grammar school. The next county does and I know of at least 6 families from my Area that go to it. Not a problem as such but these are high earners that viewed the private school and enrolled their children but said will try the grammar first to get it for free !!! They then set up after school teaching in order to et a place. To me this is not what the grammar school are for. So yes they should be abolished or at least change the rules.

The people on here taking about how they got into grammar school without tutoring really don't understand how much it's changed over the years.
I don't live in a grammar area but there are schools accessible to the kids if they want to try. Those that do are tutored really intensely. We didn't with DS as it's not what he wanted, Amy thankfully we have very decent local comprehensives available to us.
My mum went to a secondary modern and every time she talks about her school days, she'll make a mention of the "bright girls" going to the grammar, like all the girls a at her school were never going to achieve much because they weren't at the grammar so weren't expected to. It's rather sad to listen to.

I live in a part of the UK which is economically and socially disadvantaged but has a lot of grammars. The education standard overall is very high.

I do understand why grammar schools bother people, but having lived in other disadvantaged bits of the Uk where the comprehensives were woeful (no middle class families to be pushy about standards) that was definitely worse.

I also don’t think the one-size-fits all comprehensive fits many kids, and they are mostly far too big.

I’d like to see more variety in education, including more selective opportunities aimed at poor bright kids, and more opportunities for non-academic kids to move to mostly vocational courses earlier.

Which is a very long winded way of saying I disagree, but agree the system needs an overhaul.

It is completely unfair. I work in a grammar school and yes we have a lot of incredibly bright students, but are they any brighter than a lot of children who didn’t pass the test? I’m pretty certain there are students who failed the 11+ who are more suited to a grammar school than some students who passed after being tutored to within an inch of their lives.

We have students who struggle with the fast pace of teaching. We also have to cope with students who are used to being the brightest student in their year at junior school, only to discover that compared to some of their classmates they are average at best, which for some plays havoc with their self-esteem.

Living in a county with a grammar system, we have to put up with over-inflated house prices, but ironically the large majority of our students are from outside the county. Very few come from the local junior schools, most are from private schools whose main concern is getting students to pass the test. It’s incredibly unfair and divisive.

However, I am a firm believer that if a child works hard and has the support of their parents they will do well at any school. But being at a grammar school definitely gives students an advantage in better resources and support.

Well I know what you mean, but I'm a TA and I've got several (wealthy) children in my Yr 5 class who are apparently being tutored at least once a week for 1-2 hrs at a time: I shall be charitable and say - you wouldn't bloody know it.

The Grammar schools of old only gave the chance of social mobility to some working class children. pikapikapukachu's mother's experience was the more typical one.

60 years ago, the primary school I was at for the 11+ streamed children from age 7 and the A stream were crammed for the test, so there was no need for tutoring. So some kids got written off at age 7.

@Jaggerdagger

I notice it even more because I grew up in a county that had no grammar or private schools nearby, and so everyone just went to their local comp. It wasn't perfect, but the opportunities were equal and some of the teaching was superb.

Equal opportunities to get shitkickings for being smart in my experience.

Or, as happened to me aged 15, stabbed.

My DD got into the grammar but if she hadn't, she wouldn't have got into our nearest comp which is Church of England, we're not the correct religion. Lots of things are unfair.